“It wouldn't be the first corruption of Greek by the west, for sure.”
More condescension. Oh, well. Not unexpected.
“I am aware of that. However, I do not see why. What is lacking in the Eastern Church that is not lacking in the Western?”
I'm not a theologian, kosta50. I know what the Church teaches, but make no claim to understand it perfectly.
My [imperfect] understanding is that it revolves around the failure to be in communion with the See of Peter.
But keep in mind, although the Catholic Church believes that there is an ontological difference between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, I haven't said that there is an ontological difference between the baptism of Catholics and Orthodox. Or of anyone else validly baptized.
But frankly, I regret getting into a discussion over ontology, as it's sort of beside the point in this discussion, which is about CAUCUS LABELING. The differences between Catholics and Orthodox are sufficient to require different labels. Catholics in communion with the See of Peter include more than Latin-rite Catholics. And common usage gives the name of those Christians in communion with the See of Peter as "Catholics" and those apostolic Christians not in that communion as "Orthodox."
And I think that that is the only assertion made by the Religion Moderator when using those labels.
“’The Polish National Catholic Church is an apostolic Church in the United States that has, as far as I know, continuing apostolic succession, validity of holy orders and sacraments, etc. They are in schism from the Catholic Church.’
“Why?”
If I recall correctly (and I'm only on my second cup of coffee on a Monday morning, so I may not), they left the Church over the issue of trusteeship.
“Sure. Those Catholics who cannot provide proof of baptism or whose baptism did not conform to the baptismal formula practiced by the Church in the first millennium have to be baptized. There is only one ‘valid’ baptism.”
With nearly 50 years of it, my experience of the sacramental record-keeping of the Catholic Church is that it's pretty darned good. With very few exceptions, anyone who made an effort to ascertain the baptismal certificate of a Catholic would receive a prompt and complete response. Thus, I can see that in rare cases, one might be unable to obtain the baptismal record of a Catholic, but I have read that some Orthodox Churches in some places at some times have routinely re-baptized Catholics.
“I would love to hear the excuse for such a belief, since it is not what the Cathodic church practiced in the first millennium.”
I'm not sure what the issue is here. That the Catholic Church regards her baptisms as valid? That the Catholic Church doesn't re-baptize Orthodox folks?
“There is no hostility or exclusion, condescension and contempt by the Orthodox as a whole.”
Well, I certainly haven't met all the Orthodox in the world. Not by a long shot. But I've seen a few here on FR, and I've met more than a few in my 49+ years, and I think that my remarks fairly represent my own experience.
“It is the western hierarchs in general who raise abortion to the level of top dogma (which may itself be a heresy),...”
More condescension mixed with an expression of faulty understanding of the position of the Catholic Church.
Abortion is not a “top dogma” of the Catholic Church.
Rather, the Catholic Church believes and teaches that murder in all its forms is wrong, and that a just society must protect innocent citizens from murder though law. A society is unjust to the degree that it refuses to provide the protection of law to innocent persons. It is fundamentally at odds with the absolute obligation of the secular authority not only to refuse to protect in law innocent persons, but to declare a “constitutional RIGHT” of one class of persons to privately murder without legal consequence another class of persons.
Now, most species of private killing in the United States are illegal, so that those who commit these acts will be prosecuted, and many persons may be persuaded by the pain of the penalty of law from committing private killings. Thus, the Church doesn't go around protesting against serial murderers of born persons. It's already illegal, the state already prosecutes persons who commit such crimes. The state may enforce the law in imperfect ways, may fail in individual cases, but generally, in the United States, the appropriate governmental authorities do a pretty decent job in most places of trying to protect innocent persons from being privately killed by aggressors through the application of law.
Clearly, this isn't the case with the issue of abortion.
The state manifestly fails in its obligation to protect in law unborn persons. And in fact, the governmental authority of the United States has specifically defined the private killing of unborn persons as a “right.” The result is the gross social injustice that over one million innocent persons are unjustly killed per year.
The Catholic Church teaches that that is a horror (it is), and that Catholic politicians must not support such a legal regime, and in fact, must do their best to reverse it.
Think about how much [unfair] criticism Pope Pius XII has received in the past few decades for not saying more against the Nazis for killing Jews. This, in spite of the fact that he DID speak up and condemn the Aryan policies of the Nazis, and that in 1931, LONG BEFORE THE ACTUAL HOLOCAUST BEGAN, the Catholic Church actually EXCOMMUNICATED EN MASSE all the leadership of the Nazi party in Germany.
Was the Catholic Church raising to the level of “top dogma” its fundamental opposition to the Nazi party and its program of racism and anti-semitism? Was it wrong for the Catholic bishops of Germany to excommunicate the leaders of the Nazi party for their abhorrent social program? I don't think that too many folks would say that.
Then why would anyone say something like abortion is the “top dogma” (whatever that means) of the Catholic bishops in the United States? Because they teach generally that no Catholic can support the legal regime of abortion on demand that entirely violates the fundamental human rights of over one million unborn children per year?
Because some bishops have actually connected the dots and asked Catholic politicians who support the legality of the private murder of the unborn to refrain from receiving the Blessed Sacrament?
The reason why the bishops make such a big deal about it is because IT'S A VERY BIG DEAL. It is the SINGLE GREATEST VIOLATION OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS CURRENTLY TAKING PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES.
It would be VERY DISAPPOINTING if the bishops did not speak out clearly, urgently and forcefully against the wholesale slaughter of an entire class of human persons. It IS very disappointing that our bishops don't do even more than they do with regard to pro-abortion Catholic politicians!
What should be a more important topic on the bishops’ social agenda than the slaughter of over one million innocent children per year?
Health care? Feeding the hungry? Housing the homeless?
The government does NOT ban by law providing health care to the poor. The government does NOT permit one class of folks to literally steal the bread from another class of persons, nor to steal the homes of a class of folks. The government actually has laws to prevent these things.
Even if the society fails to do as much as it should for the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick, THE POWER OF THE STATE IS NOT USED TO IMPOVERISH, TO STARVE, TO STEAL, TO MAKE HOMELESS OR SICK. But the power of the state IS used to PERMIT PRIVATE MURDER OF AN ENTIRE CLASS OF PERSONS, and practically speaking, the number of persons so murdered is huge.
ONE OUT OF EVERY FOUR UNBORN PERSONS IN THE UNITED STATES IS PRIVATELY MURDERERD.
That this is the number one social issue of the Catholic bishops seems appropriate to me, entirely reasonable, and absolutely required on their part.
Ironically, the bishops don't speak forcefully about this because it's an issue of dogma. LOL. If it were an issue of dogma, the bishops would have nothing to say to public square. Dogma and doctrine are the Immaculate Conception or the Incarnation. The bishops have no right, and assert no right to demand that American law recognize the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception or the dogma of the Incarnation. That would be silly talk in the United States.
No, the bishops demand that the law be changed to protect unborn persons because it is possible for every man to discern that it is wrong to murder, and that it is the absolute obligation of every state to protect in law the innocent from unjust aggressors.
The bishops require support by Catholic politicians for the legal protection of the unborn not because it makes these Catholic politicians bad CATHOLICS if they don't, but because it makes them HUMAN ATROCITIES, COMPLETE MORAL FAILURES if they don't.
ANYONE - Catholic or otherwise - who refuses to assent to the absolute moral requirement that the state protect in law the basic right to life of all human persons, born or unborn, does great evil, commits objectively grave evil. For those with full knowledge (and all Catholic politicians have full knowledge, constructive or actual) and full consent of the will, they who refuse to assent to this fundamental obligation of the secular authority commit mortal sin.
Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion commit mortal sin PUBLICLY, and it isn't unreasonable to ask these folks to stay away from receiving the Most Blessed Sacrament.
But it is precisely because this is NOT a matter of Catholic religious dogma or doctrine, NOT a matter of Divine Revelation, NOT a matter of Christian belief, NOT matter of religious faith, but an obligation on ALL men to acknowledge the moral law written on their hearts that the Catholic Church has not only the right, but the absolute moral obligation to INSIST that secular authorities protect the rights of unborn human persons not to be privately killed.
sitetest
Sorry, this playing a victim card won't work. Translational errors have been well documented and are obvious to anyone who has even a basic knowledge of Greek.
I'm not a theologian, kosta50. I know what the Church teaches, but make no claim to understand it perfectly
Well, then, tell me what the Church teaches on the subject. What is lacking in the Eastern Church that is not lacking in the Western? Are the sacraments valid? Yes! Are the clergy valid? Yes! Is there apostolic authority in the Eastern Churches (apostolic succession)? Yes! Are the eastern Churches "real" Churches? yes! So, then, what is ontologically lacking in the Eastern Church to make it "less" catholic?
What the East is lacking is communion with Rome and Rome is lacking communion with the East. The Church (East or West) is not ontologically lacking anything; the fullness of Christ is in the Eucharist of either. What both "lungs" are lacking is the other lung.
That is an ecclesial, not ontological issue. The Church is not a sum of it parts. Where there is a valid bishop there is the ontological fullness of the catholic Church in her clergy, Eucharist and sacraments.
The Eastern Church is deficient because of her lack of communion with Rome, and Rome is deficient without the other "lung." Otherwise, the Pope would not be making reunion his No. 1 priority, and Orthodox prelates would not be working with him to find a way to reestablish that communion.
But keep in mind, although the Catholic Church believes that there is an ontological difference between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, I haven't said that there is an ontological difference between the baptism of Catholics and Orthodox. Or of anyone else validly baptized
What is the "ontological" difference between the two particular Churches? You are tossing around a term which, I am beginning to think, you do not fully understand.
But frankly, I regret getting into a discussion over ontology, as it's sort of beside the point in this discussion, which is about CAUCUS LABELING.
Show me that the Orthodox Church is not ontologcially catholic and you can have your labeling. The point with caucus labeling is that just because the western Church uses a label doesn't make the western Church the only rightful owner of that label.
However, we have conventions which are necessary to accentuate our ecclesial/theological disagreements which are unfortunately confused by some as valid ontological differences, and then some in position of authority inadvertently make a fool of themselves by claiming that these conventional labels represent ontological differences, i.e. that the Orthodox are "guests" on caucuses labeled "catholic" because somehow the Orthodox are not ontologically catholic.
The objection, of course, is that your label needs to be fixed. Just because DemocRats use the label doesn't mean democracy is exclusively their prerogative! This is like labeling the caucus "human" and then proceed to label some participants as "guests" because some of you are more human then other.
I you don' want the Orthodox to particpate in Catholic caucuses, find another label.
The differences between Catholics and Orthodox are sufficient to require different labels. Catholics in communion with the See of Peter include more than Latin-rite Catholics. And common usage gives the name of those Christians in communion with the See of Peter as "Catholics" and those apostolic Christians not in that communion as "Orthodox."
Orthodox is not correct either (there are Orthodox Jews as well). Eastern Orthodox, or Orthodox Catholic (official), or even Greek, should be sued, just as Latin Catholic or Western Catholic or Roman Catholic (very conventional). Monopolizing the term Catholic by one group does not make only that group catholic.
Baptiso means immersion, not splashing, not sprinkling, not wetting the top of your head. Unless there is evidence of complete immersion (either dunking into a baptismal font, or pouring water over the head of the person being baptized) an Orthodox bishop will almost always "err" on the side of baptizing. That way he knows the Church did everything in her power to assure the well being of a soul.
Roman Catholic baptism is basically wetting the top of the head. At other times in the history of the Latin Catholic Church, sprinkling was practiced. I have observed Roman Catholic baptisms. They are not baptisms as the Church understood them in the East and the West in the first millennium, and in the East all along.
I'm not sure what the issue is here. That the Catholic Church regards her baptisms as valid? That the Catholic Church doesn't re-baptize Orthodox folks?
The Orthodox do not re-baptize Roman Catholic folks either; they baptize them when and where there is reason to believe they were not baptized as the Church has understood baptism.
Well, I certainly haven't met all the Orthodox in the world. Not by a long shot. But I've seen a few here on FR, and I've met more than a few in my 49+ years, and I think that my remarks fairly represent my own experience
And that experience is that they are contemptuous and condescending bunch? So, your anecdotal acquaintance with, say, one, two dozen eastern Orthodox, if that many, allows you to draw such broad conclusions? It is nothing but a personal impression stated as a matter of fact. What evidence do you have that your sample is large enough and random enough to allow you to paint some 400 million human beings with such unflattering labels?
Actually, the one particular poster you placed in your cross hairs quoted a Roman Catholic hierarch suggesting in no uncertain terms that it is a top dogma of the RCC in one of the recent threads. So, condescension and faulty understanding seem to be a straw man rather than something substantive.
Rather, the Catholic Church believes and teaches that murder in all its forms is wrong, and that a just society must protect innocent citizens from murder though law
The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches the same thing regarding murder, but since when does the Church dictate what the society must do?
A society is unjust to the degree that it refuses to provide the protection of law to innocent persons.
That seems to be at odds with the teachings of St. Paul who actually states that all authority must be obeyed.
It is fundamentally at odds with ... to declare a “constitutional RIGHT” of one class of persons to privately murder without legal consequence another class of persons
I couldn't agree more. However, the society, especially some members of the female gender in the society, is in disagreement as to what is a person, denying that a developing human embryo is ontologically human!
The Catholic Church teaches that [legalized abortion] is a horror (it is), and that Catholic politicians must not support such a legal regime, and in fact, must do their best to reverse it
These politicians argue that they don't support murder but merely recognize that other people do not see abortion as murder. This is what happens when you confuse a label for essence.
However, rather than telling how others should think, or what they must do, the Church ought to practice what she preaches and do what she needs to do—namely, excommunicate those who openly go against her beliefs.
RCC also functioned in Nazi Germany and maintained diplomatic relations with Hitler's government. the Nazi leaderhsip proclaimed a different 'religion' so their excommunication was a no-brainer. Nevertheless, the RCC found a workable relationships with the Nazis on many levels.
Because they teach generally that no Catholic can support the legal regime of abortion on demand that entirely violates the fundamental human rights of over one million unborn children per year?
So, why doesn't the RCC then do what it did with the Nazi leadership and summarily excommunicate every and all those Catholic politicians who profess support for abortion?
It would be VERY DISAPPOINTING if the bishops did not speak out clearly, urgently and forcefully against the wholesale slaughter of an entire class of human persons
It is even more disappointing if they do noting about it, which is the case in the RCC as a whole. The problem S that they just talk about it! And the Eastern Orthodox Church is doing even less in that regard! Apparently, the Greek side of the eastern Church here in America seems to feel that just being Greek is enough to "erase" the sin of supporting abortions and will go even as far as honoring such politicians.
Either way, both Churches seem to talk too much and do too little! As far as I am concerned, they deserve each other wholeheartedly.
What should be a more important topic on the bishops’ social agenda than the slaughter of over one million innocent children per year?
Throwing out the trash.
Even if the society fails to do as much as it should for the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick, THE POWER OF THE STATE IS NOT USED TO IMPOVERISH, TO STARVE, TO STEAL, TO MAKE HOMELESS OR SICK. But the power of the state IS used to PERMIT PRIVATE MURDER OF AN ENTIRE CLASS OF PERSONS, and practically speaking, the number of persons so murdered is huge.
So, why is the Church then maintaining relations with such a government? How is, in the eyes of the Church, one murderous government different form another simply because millions of innocents being murdered by law happen to be Jews in once case and non-Jews is another? Where are the mass excommunications?
That's not what the Church is about. The Church needs to clean her own house, not try to run the government. If it is not her business to legislate immaculate Conception then ti is not her business to legislate morality either. The Church needs to do what the Church MUST do and that is excommunicate those preach what the Church is opposed to.
But it is precisely because this is NOT a matter of Catholic religious dogma or doctrine, NOT a matter of Divine Revelation...but an obligation [sic] on ALL men to acknowledge the moral law written on their hearts...
The knowledge of which is supposedly a matter of divine revelation...The only claim to any universal morality is based on religious revelation. There is nothing inherently in man's biology that requires him to submit to moral principles universally.
Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion commit mortal sin PUBLICLY
How so? Pelosi and Kennedy and the Sarbanes, and Snowes did not murder anyone personally. They simply recognize that some people are of a different moral persuasion and that we, as a secular society, cannot impose our religious beliefs on others.
The early Church taught that a Christian can not serve in the military. That sure has changed! The early Church also taught that embryos were not "ensouled" and St. Augustine argued that one, therefore, cannot kill that which is not alive. That sure has changed! The early Church also proclaimed at the Quinisext Council that Christians are not to go to Jewish physicians. That sure has changed!
And, more recently, the Church excommunicated the whole leadership of the Nazi Party in Germany but has "difficulties" doing the same when it comes to pro-abortionists like Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy, etc. At least the Eastern Orthodox don't thump their chest. They keep things pretty much quiet and hope than no one with notice. I myself did not know about the Sarbanes's and Olympia Snowe's position precisely because ehtnofiletism competes with Eastern Orthodox morality at times. But both Churchs are guilty of hypocrisy when it comes to abortion.
Wasn't Kennedy's funeral a moral equivalent of the Greek Orthodox Church's honoring of the Sarbanes "native sons" or looking the other way with Olympia Snowe? Lack of condemnation of such politicians by any Orthodox Church is a grave moral sin in steroids!
So, perhaps both Churchs deserve each other quite well, but not as a compliment.